“Until the great mass of the people shall be filled with the sense of responsibly for each other’s welfare, social justice can never be attained” - Helen Keller (Good Reads). Social justice has become an increasingly more popular subject in the past decade. Regardless of whether or not all of the proposed ideas and solutions are good ideas, it is important to know the different perspectives about this topic. Two well-written articles on the topic of social justice are “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream” and “Social Justice Deficits in the Local Food Movement.” In “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream” published by the New York Times in 2009, Nicholas Kristof seeks to change the minds of most Americans about sweatshops. He shows the harsh realities
…show more content…
They are both concerned with the lifestyles and conditions of the poor. Kristof, however, is primarily concerned with the poor in undeveloped countries such as Africa. Smirl’s focus is closer to home as she looks at a trend that affects the poor in the US and Canada. Another thing to note is their different expectations. In Where Sweatshops Are a Dream, Kristof says, “would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But… in the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom” (Kristof). Kristof knows it is unrealistic to expect those in undeveloped countries to have the same working conditions we have in the US. As a result, his primary concern in his article is simply to slowly raise the living standards by allowing sweatshops rather than trying to supply the exact standards common in developed countries. In Social Justice Deficits in the Local Food Movement, Smirl’s focus is on equality for everyone, at least here in North America. Her idea of ‘social justice’ is a system “which attempts to increase low-income access to healthy foods… building community and challenging inequality.” Kristof’s idea of social justice is giving people opportunities to better themselves and their communities, Smirl’s idea is to make everyone …show more content…
Both of them are knowledgeable but Kristof has the added lens of personal experience in his article. As Kristof says, “My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared… because of sweatshops” (Kristof). The arguments Kristof makes are mostly to evoke emotions in his audience. He tells about the garbage dumps “of festering refuse… emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires” in order to give the audience a sense of disgust (Kristof). He uses various stories and quotes from people living in the garbage dumps of Cambodia. Then, he backs up and shows how good sweatshops are in comparison. This point is also surrounded with personal stories. Smirl’s arguments are more systematic. She addresses how people romanticize the idea of locally grown food because they see it as “’safe, ‘nutritious,’ and ‘sustainable” (Smirl 2) Then she proceeds to explain why the current local food system doesn’t live up to the ideals. Finally, she offers “a way forward” to remedy the problems facing the poor. Kristof’s article is short and packed full of emotion where as Smirl’s article is more details and offers research and logic with only traces of an emotional connection with her
They are both concerned with the lifestyles and conditions of the poor. Kristof, however, is primarily concerned with the poor in undeveloped countries such as Africa. Smirl’s focus is closer to home as she looks at a trend that affects the poor in the US and Canada. Another thing to note is their different expectations. In Where Sweatshops Are a Dream, Kristof says, “would you want to work in a sweatshop? No, of course not. But… in the hierarchy of jobs in poor countries, sweltering at a sewing machine isn’t the bottom” (Kristof). Kristof knows it is unrealistic to expect those in undeveloped countries to have the same working conditions we have in the US. As a result, his primary concern in his article is simply to slowly raise the living standards by allowing sweatshops rather than trying to supply the exact standards common in developed countries. In Social Justice Deficits in the Local Food Movement, Smirl’s focus is on equality for everyone, at least here in North America. Her idea of ‘social justice’ is a system “which attempts to increase low-income access to healthy foods… building community and challenging inequality.” Kristof’s idea of social justice is giving people opportunities to better themselves and their communities, Smirl’s idea is to make everyone …show more content…
Both of them are knowledgeable but Kristof has the added lens of personal experience in his article. As Kristof says, “My views on sweatshops are shaped by years living in East Asia, watching as living standards soared… because of sweatshops” (Kristof). The arguments Kristof makes are mostly to evoke emotions in his audience. He tells about the garbage dumps “of festering refuse… emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires” in order to give the audience a sense of disgust (Kristof). He uses various stories and quotes from people living in the garbage dumps of Cambodia. Then, he backs up and shows how good sweatshops are in comparison. This point is also surrounded with personal stories. Smirl’s arguments are more systematic. She addresses how people romanticize the idea of locally grown food because they see it as “’safe, ‘nutritious,’ and ‘sustainable” (Smirl 2) Then she proceeds to explain why the current local food system doesn’t live up to the ideals. Finally, she offers “a way forward” to remedy the problems facing the poor. Kristof’s article is short and packed full of emotion where as Smirl’s article is more details and offers research and logic with only traces of an emotional connection with her